ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of a suit No. 706 of 1977 filed by Mahmood Ahmad, subsequently, prosecuted by Shakila Khatoon, respondent No. 3, against the petitioner for ejectment from the house in dispute. The house in dispute is house No. 52, Hammam, Allahabad. The petitioner is, admittedly, the tenant in the house in dispute. 2. The trial Court by its judgment dated 26th July, 1983, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the relationship of a landlord and tenant did not exist between the petitioner and Mahmood Ahmad. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed a civil revision under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court by its judgment dated 3rd Feb., 1984, allowed the revision, set aside the judgment passed by the Judge, Small Cause Courts dated 26th July, 1983, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for arrears of rent and ejectment. The petitioner has now challenged the judgment dated 3rd Feb., 1984, by means of the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revisional Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the findings recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Courts on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant by reappraising the evidence on the record and, as such, the impugned judgment is vitiated in law. The submission is that even if the revisional Court had come to the conclusion that if for any reason, the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Courts, was erroneous in law, the only course open to the revisional Court was to remand the case to the Judge, Small Causes Court for a fresh finding and it could not, in law, record a finding itself. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner Karim Ullah had taken the property on rent from Kifayat Ullah, who died in December, 1961. In order to establish that a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and Mahmood Ahmad, the plaintiff had relied upon a registered' partition/compromise deed dated 24th Dec., 1962, whereby the properties were divided and the house in dispute fell to the share of Mahmood Ahmad. In order to establish that a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and Mahmood Ahmad, the plaintiff had relied upon a registered' partition/compromise deed dated 24th Dec., 1962, whereby the properties were divided and the house in dispute fell to the share of Mahmood Ahmad. A certified copy of the registered deed was filed on the record of the suit. It was further averred on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the said partition deed was acted upon and the properties were divided by metes and bounds and in Suit No. 57 of 1965 filed by one Mukhtar Ahmad against Smt. Hamida Khatoon and Mahmood Ahmad it was also categorically stated in the joint written statement filed by Smt. Hamida Khatoon and Mahmood Ahmad that a registered partition deed had been executed on 24th Dec., 1962. In the decree passed in Suit No. 57 of 1965, it was held by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad, that Smt. Hamida Khatoon and Mahmood Ahmad were entitled to the properties in dispute in that suit in accordance with the deed dated 24th Dec., 1962. The judgment in Suit No. 57 of 1965 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad, was challenged in First Appeal No. 50 of 1969 in the High Court. This Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 14th Nov., 1979. The property in dispute, in the present petition, was also one of the properties in dispute in Suit No. 57 of 1965, which came to the share of Mahmood Ahmad. 5. The Court of Judge, Small Causes, after examining the evidence on the record, recorded a finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established between Mahmood Ahmad and the petitioner Karim Ullah. This finding has been arrived at after ignoring the partition deed dated 24th Dec., 1962, on the ground that the said deed had not been proved in accordance with law. Since the Court of Judge, Small Causes, was of the opinion that the deed in question had not been proved, reliance was also not placed on the decision given in the appeal arising out of Suit No. 57 of 1965. Since the Court of Judge, Small Causes, was of the opinion that the deed in question had not been proved, reliance was also not placed on the decision given in the appeal arising out of Suit No. 57 of 1965. The revisional Court held that the plaintiff-respondent had proved the partition deed dated 24th Dec., 1962, and that the Judge, Small Causes Court, wrongly ignored to consider the effect of the partition deed dated 24th Dec., 1962, which was the most material document to prove the relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. The finding in regard to relationship of landlord and tenant was, reversed as the partition deed clearly established that the property belonged to Mahmood Ahmad and on record, there were counterfoils of receipts (Exts. 1 to 20) to show that Karim Ullah paid rent to Mahmood Ahmad. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various decisions of this Court in support of his submission that the revisional Court could not have reappraised the evidence on the record and thereafter set aside the finding arrived at by the Judge, Small Causes Court. The decisions relied upon, by the learned counsel are Natthi Lal v. Satya Pal, (1988) 1 All Rent Cas 9, Ram Mohan v. Bisheshwar Lal, (1985) 2 All Rent Cas 315 and Smt. Indra Mukhi Verma v. Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, (1985) 2 All Rent Cas 185 : 1985All LJ 1188. In all these cases, it has been held that the revisional Court under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act cannot reappraise the evidence and reverse a finding of fact. This proposition is not disputed. 7. The basic case on which all these cases are based is the decision of this Court in Lakhmi Kishore v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 All Rent Cas 545. It has been held in this case, as under : "The Court deciding a revision under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has to satisfy itself that the trial Courts' decree or order is according to law. Of course, the' Revisional Court should keep in mind the Supreme Court's dictum in Naicker's case, AIR 1969 SC 1344 (supra) that a wrong' decision on fact is also a decision according: to law. Of course, the' Revisional Court should keep in mind the Supreme Court's dictum in Naicker's case, AIR 1969 SC 1344 (supra) that a wrong' decision on fact is also a decision according: to law. If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. Same will be the., case where the finding is based only on l inadmissible evidence. In such cases, the Court will be justified in deciding the question, of fact itself, because the evidence is all one way. No assessment is needed. The Court: can also decide the revision if only a question, of law or some preliminary point of law, viz. validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision. But, if it-finds that a particular finding of fact is vitiated by an error of law, it has power, to pass such order as the justice of the case requires but it has no jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence in order to' determine an issue of fact for itself. If it cannot dispose of the case adequately without a finding on a particular issue of fact, it should' send the case back after laying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, assess it and determine an issue of fact." 8. From the above view taken by the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear he it is not an absolute rule that in every case -where the revisional Court finds that tee finding recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court is erroneous, it must remand the case. In fact, it has been held, as quoted above, that if the revisional Court finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. It has also been held that where the finding is based only on inadmissible evidence, the Court would be justified in deciding the question of fact itself because the evidence is all one way. No assessment would be needed. It has also been held that the revisional Court can also decide a revision if only a question of law of some preliminary point of law, viz.. 'validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision. 9. No assessment would be needed. It has also been held that the revisional Court can also decide a revision if only a question of law of some preliminary point of law, viz.. 'validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has in this connection relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi, AIR 1984 SC 1447 : 1984 All LJ 379. In this case, it was the judgment of this Court, which was challenged in the Supreme Court. This Court had taken exception to the judgtent of the revisional Court in setting aside the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court and, consequently, set aside the judgment of the revisional Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court holding that the revisional Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court and recording its own finding. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : "The Additional District Judge rightly took exception 'to this approach to the matter by the trial court and since the evidence of the plaintiff had not been scrutinised under the erroneous impression of the legal position, the same was looked into to find out whether the claim of the sub-tenancy had been established. This was not an attempt to reassess evidence, but to take into consideration the evidence which has not been looked into by the trial Court. The revisional jurisdiction under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is not as wide as the appellate jurisdiction under S. 96 of the Civil P.C.'yet in a case of this type, we do not think fault could be found with the revisional Court for pointing out the legal error committed by the trial Court in its approach to this material aspect. The legal position having been totally misconceived by he trial Court and there being an assumption of the position which the landlord was required to prove by evidence, the revisional authority was entitled to point out the legal error and rectify the defect. This is all that had been done by the Additional District Judge." 10. The legal position having been totally misconceived by he trial Court and there being an assumption of the position which the landlord was required to prove by evidence, the revisional authority was entitled to point out the legal error and rectify the defect. This is all that had been done by the Additional District Judge." 10. From this case, it is apparent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that where the trial court has ignored to consider any piece of evidence on the erroneous impression that he could not do so, the revisional court could, if it found that the evidence was wrongly ignored, re-consider the matter and give its own finding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that in such a case, it would not be a case for re- assessment of evidence, but would be a case where the legal error was sought to be set right by the revisional court. 11. In the instant case, the Judge, Small Cause Court held that no relationship of landlord and tenant had been established, as he was of the view that the partition deed dated 24th Dec., 1962, had not been proved. He, consequently, ignored to consider this document. This document clearly established that the property in dispute came to the share of Mahmood Ahmad. The counterfoils of receipts (Exts. 1 to 20) were already on the record to show that Karim.Ullah paid rent to Mahmood Ahmad. All the material evidence went to establish that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established. No re- assessment of the evidence was required and, as such, from the principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Lakshmi Kishore v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 All Rent Cas 545 (supra) as well as in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi, 1984 All LI 379 (supra), the revisional court was justified in reversing the finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court, in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Since no re-assessment of the evidence was required, it would not be necessary to remand the case. In the circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, is without substance. 12. Since no re-assessment of the evidence was required, it would not be necessary to remand the case. In the circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, is without substance. 12. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that, in fact the partition deed dated 24th Dec., 1962, was considered by the Judge, Small Cause Court and was not ignored. This submission of the learned counsel, in my opinion, is misconceived. The Judge, Small Causes Court did not consider this document, as according to the Judge, Small Causes Court, it was not proved in law. 13. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.